This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Friend Loss over Illuminati?

edited November 2010 in Board Games
Will this happen? I picked it up cheap at a game store. Seems innocent enough, but I tend to heed warnings from random podcasters, so I'm posing the question here.
«1

Comments

  • If this occurs, good riddance.
  • I completely misunderstood the topic of this thread when I first entered...
  • New guy, I like you, but this thread is unnecessary.
  • Illuminati is a game with much backstabbage, so yes you will lose friends.

    But seriously, if you actually legitimately lose a friend because you screwed them over at Illuminati, good riddance.
  • edited November 2010
    *That "hey guys, what's going on in this thread?" picture goes here, but I don't want to link it, 'cause it really isn't that funny and takes up space*

    Is Illuminati a Facebook game of something of the sort?
    Post edited by Aria on
  • It's a card game. More seriously, how do I convince my friends to play? They are all nerds- similar to me.
  • It's a card game. More seriously, how do I convince my friends to play? They are all nerds- similar to me.
    Buy it and say hey guys, let's play this game.
  • edited November 2010
    I have tried this. I am weeding out most of my squirrelly friends.
    Squirrelly as in they lack the capacity to sit still and learn rules.
    Fire Emblem obsessed lunkheads, the lot of them.
    Post edited by colbyblogger on
  • Fire Emblem obsessed lunkheads, the lot of them.
    If they like Fire Emblem, then you should be able to get them to play some board games.
  • I have this problem, but it is magnified by the fact that the game is Arkham Horror.
  • I don't know about that game, but New Super Mario Bros Wii is a guaranteed friend loss in eight hours or less.
  • Don't talk about that game. Ever.
  • edited November 2010
    I have this problem, but it is magnified by the fact that the game is Arkham Horror.
    That's because Arkham Horror is a bad game.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • edited November 2010
    I hear contrasting things, but I haven't bought it yet. Care to expound?
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • edited November 2010
    I hear contrasting things, but I haven't bought it yet. Care to expound?
    It's a cooperative beat the game game, like Pandemic and the others. I'm not a fan of these games to begin with, because whether you win or lose really comes down to luck.

    If they made a game in this genre that was always winnable no matter what random encounters appear in what order, then the game would be so easy as to be boring. That's just the nature of the mechanic. Therefore, they always make them really hard, so you are always on the edge, and there isn't even a guarantee that even half of the possible configurations are winnable. Obviously if you make bad decisions you will lose even in a winnable situation, but sometimes no matter what decision you make, you will still lose.

    I played Arkham Horror only once, and with a default configuration. It wasn't fundamentally much different than Pandemic or others. It has the same problems, just magnified. The decisions available to you are much fewer and more obvious. Achieving victory takes longer, and is more tedious than in similar games. I guess it's thematically appropriate, but the game is really stupidly hard. There are many difficulties and players have very few resources.

    As far as beat the game games go, I'm a bigger fan of Space Alert. The problem is that Space Alert is a real-time game that involves the equivalent of computer programming and true collaboration with imperfect information. It's always winnable, but you'll actually win it less than you will win a game like Pandemic or Arkham Horror if you aren't playing with really smart and quick people. I just like it more because it is skill, not luck, that determines victory.

    I also prefer Fury of Dracula to Arkham Horror and Pandemic. While Fury of Dracula has a huge flaw in the stupid rock/paper/scissors combat system, at least you are facing off against a human intelligence, Dracula, as opposed to a deck of random cards.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • edited November 2010
    If they made a game in this genre that was always winnable no matter what random encounters appear in what order, then the game would be so easy as to be boring.
    I don't think that's true. Think of this genre of game as a puzzle for which the solution is an algorithm.

    For example, your typical chess problem is a single-player beat-the-game game, and yet the solutions to chess problems are not necessarily easy to find.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • I don't think that's true. Think of this genre of game as a puzzle for which the solution is an algorithm.
    It is true that there are optimal algorithms, but even the most optimal algorithm will not always win.

    Think of Tetris. Theoretically the tetrominoes are selected at random. That means you could possibly get all S pieces, and would die very quickly. The same applies to a game like Pandemic. The deck of cards determining where the next breakout will occur is random. Imagine if an evil person stacked that deck for maximum difficulty. The players would have no chance regardless of their algorithm. Even with random selection, the players often have no chance.

    In Fury of Dracula, Scotland Yard, etc. the game is always winnable. The result is that the players who are cooperating win every time, if they have the necessary skill level. They know the algorithm, and it always works. Mr. X and Dracula can only win against players who screw up big time.

    In Pandemic, Lord of the Rings, Arkham Horror, etc. the game setup is random. It's not always winnable. The same players cooperating with the same high skill level will win only a percentage of the time with an optimal algorithm. It's a Catch-22 situation. If you make the game always winnable, then it becomes too easy because the algorithm always wins, and it's boring. If you make the game harder, it won't always be winnable. Then it's bullshit that you lost even though you played optimally.

    The only way to have beat the game games I feel is to have the challenges be scripted, like Space Alert, or to have a human opponent.

    With scripted challenges the game will run out of replay value after you beat all the challenges, but there are a lot of them. They are also quite difficult, and the physical non-broken limits on information sharing (take a lesson Shadows over Camelot!) limit the ability to achieve an optimal algorithm by slowing down cooperation, which matters since the game is timed. Scripted challenges are also good excuses to sell expansions.

    With a human opponent, the game can also be quite good. You just have to not make the mistake of unbalancing the game towards one side or the other, as in Dracula and Scotland Yard.
  • I usually like beat the game games, but Pandemic is ASS... You go from winning to having Lost in like a turn or so with no way to actually save yourself sometimes..
  • I usually like beat the game games, but Pandemic is ASS... You go from winning to having Lost in like a turn or so with no way to actually save yourself sometimes..
    Exactly what I'm saying. It's like Solitaire. Sometimes it's not winnable, no matter what moves you make. If they changed it to be always winnable, it would be too easy and boring. The model is inherently flawed.
  • edited November 2010
    I don't think that's true. Think of this genre of game as a puzzle for which the solution is an algorithm.
    It is true that there are optimal algorithms, but even the most optimal algorithm will not always win.
    Sure, this may be the case with randomized challenges.
    However, my point is that the point of this kind of game is to find that optimal algorithm. Once you are able to execute the optimal algorithm perfectly every time, there's no point in continuing to play, but it's not easy and boring until you've done so. If the optimal algorithm isn't trivial to find and execute, there is still a point to this kind of game.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • However, my point is that the point of this kind of game is tofindthat optimal algorithm. Once you are able to execute the optimal algorithm perfectly every time, there's no point in continuing to play, but it's not easy and boring until you've done so.
    It's deceptive. Often in these games I've found the optimal algorithm on the first or second try. The thing is, most people wouldn't know it because the optimal algorithm maybe only works 40% of the time.
  • edited November 2010
    Sure, the optimal algorithm is merely one that will win any winnable situation, and if it is trivial to find, then the game sucks.

    However, the issue is not with the genre of game, but with the majority of the individual games within it. It may be very difficult to design a nontrivial beat-the-game game, but that doesn't make it impossible.

    For example, Desktop Dungeons is a pretty decent beat-the-game game with nonrandom mechanics applied to a random starting configuration. Sure, there are unwinnable situations, but there is a solid challenge in working out how to play it optimally.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • However, the issue is not with the communism... It may be very difficult to design a functioning communist society, but that doesn't make it impossible.
    Sure, there are unwinnable situations, but there is a solid challenge in working out how to play it optimally.
    That's a better direction, though they're more like co-op puzzle games than anything. Most of the offerings in the genre focus more on combining popular intellectual property (D&D;, BSG, etc...) or landscapes with social-but-not-meaty mechanics. "We're all helping!" They're relatively noncompetitive as well, which I believe actually draws many people to them for various reasons.
  • Oh... I see. Perhaps I should've guessed from the thread being in board games =P
  • edited November 2010
    Sure, there are unwinnable situations, but there is a solid challenge in working out how to play it optimally.
    That's a better direction, though they're more like co-op puzzle games than anything. Most of the offerings in the genre focus more on combining popular intellectual property (D&D;, BSG, etc...) or landscapes with social-but-not-meaty mechanics. "We're all helping!" They're relatively noncompetitive as well, which I believe actually draws many people to them for various reasons.
    Yeah, I said myself that thinking of these as puzzles was the way to go. Granted, neither of the examples I came up with is multiplayer, and don't really know of the existence of any co-operative games of this nature, but I think that is an area with potential.

    Unfortunately, many people seem to like cooperative games for no reason other than that they are cooperative, which could be the main barrier to people making cooperative games that are actually any good.

    Also, I think my main disagreement with Scott was probably over the definition of the term "beat the game game".
    EDIT: Nah, I'm giving Scott too much credit. He was probably just making an overarching generalization as usual.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • At least in a game like BSG, you know that 1-3 people in the game are working against you. So when you lose it was probably because of the traitor. In Pandemic (without the bio-terrorist) you know the game just fucked you.
  • At least in a game like BSG, you know that 1-3 people in the game are working against you. So when you lose it was probably because of the traitor. In Pandemic (without the bio-terrorist) you know the game just fucked you.
    True, but I've yet to find a game where the traitor role didn't mostly boil down to "play sub-optimally and feign error when necessary until you are forced by circumstance to reveal yourself."
  • edited November 2010
    True, but I've yet to find a game where the traitor role didn't mostly boil down to "play sub-optimally and feign error when necessary until you are forced by circumstance to reveal yourself."
    Well in BSG, (if I had explained the cylon correctly to you) you are supposed to wait for a moment of best advantage, use your characters once a game ability to FUCK everyone and then go to the cylon board and stirr shit up. At the same time you try and get other people thrown into the brig (or spaced in the expansion) Except when we played I didn't tell you that.... (also you want to try and get the title of President or Admiral and use them to screw everyone up as well) That's hardly playing sub-optimally (the only time you do that is when you are throwing in cards)... You just didn't know that because I failed at explaining the cylons in the game I played with you.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • Well in BSG, (if I had explained the cylon correctly to you) you are supposed to wait for a moment of best advantage, use your characters once a game ability to FUCK everyone and then go to the cylon board and stirr shit up.
    But knowing the rules now, it's an obvious decision when to do it, much like taking someone's guy in Sorry! I'm not making decisions as I play: I already made all the decisions I'm going to make having read the rules. I'm just enacting my strategy. I would never have to think "should I reveal myself or not?"
    you want to try and get the title of President or Admiral and use them to screw everyone up as well
    Non-cylons should never let that happen, and assume anyone who tries to make it happen is the Cylon. Only a stupid player who wasn't the Cylon would go for it anyway.
    That's hardly playing sub-optimally
    No, sub-optimally for the good guys, which is optimal for the bad guy. You can't openly fuck, but you generally fuck when possible when it matters. Very few actual decisions need to be made.

    The only fun part of the BSG game beyond the superficial theme is the Mafia element. So, why not just play Mafia? Call it BSG. Call the "mafia" Cylons.
  • edited November 2010
    True, but I've yet to find a game where the traitor role didn't mostly boil down to "play sub-optimally and feign error when necessary until you are forced by circumstance to reveal yourself."
    One of my favorite boards games, Junta!, is essentially dedicated to traitors and fucking everyone else over. However, the best part is that you are never assigned that role or forced to play the traitor. You only betray someone when it is within your best interest to do so (and if you think you can sway enough of your fellow players to rebel against the government with you). You lie, cheat, steal, and do whatever you can to win.
    Post edited by Andrew on
Sign In or Register to comment.